The Forum > Article Comments > Comprehensive reef protection plan could begin with Science Ombudsman > Comments
Comprehensive reef protection plan could begin with Science Ombudsman : Comments
By Jennifer Marohasy, published 14/6/2016Even after the information had been passed on to senior bureaucrats, the false claim of elevated levels of fat-soluble pesticides in dugongs was repeated in their influential briefing papers and reports.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 14 June 2016 9:06:21 AM
| |
The last sentence is the key to the problem (or, as even scientists say today, ‘issue’, which in itself says almost all one needs to know about the problem) Jennifer describes. Scepticism was the hallmark of my scientist colleagues when I started out. We all enjoyed pulling the work of others to pieces, we laughed at their bloopers and we set out to prove them wrong, which often they were not. Indeed, if I were asked to name the three core qualities needed for good science I would say intellect, curiosity and scepticism. Today’s scientists seem to lack scepticism, or at least the caution and self-criticism that go with it. So I wonder whether any government regulatory or oversight function based on ‘organised scepticism’ (or even organized skepticism) could ever get off the ground. One sceptical Professor (plus Jennifer of course) just isn’t enough.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 9:32:20 AM
| |
Given his publishing history and political associations, I couldn't think of a worse candidate for the proposed imaginary position.
Except maybe Jennifer herself. Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:35:49 AM
| |
There are three things to consider here.
The Science although not prefect (nothing is) scientific forums have a way to weed out bad science and support good science. If Professor Ridd has found problems with other groups work then he should publish in a credible science journal. The second point is about politics. Anybody who has had anything to do with politicians (either side it doesn't matter) will know that facts are tools of convince not of restraint. If they support your view then use them, if they don't ignore them. Lastly the idea of a Science Ombudsman. We have a chief science already which is about as close as I'd like to see us go towards an Ombudsman. The post would most likely be highly political and neither side of any any position would be happy. Ask yourself Jennifer if there was such a position and the person ruled against Professor Ridd assertions would he drop it? So the idea makes for great press in the right wing blogs and news papers but that's about it. Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:39:37 AM
| |
Good article -- notwithstanding the problem of appointing someone who is truly objective and unbiased.
However, the need for a Science Ombudsman extends well beyond the research surrounding the Great Barrier Reef. Forests issues (and possibly other areas of natural resource use)are also being badly misrepresented by biased research specifically by one academic institution targeting the production of timber. This is linked to that institution's financial and philosophical partnership with an ENGO that has pushed this agenda for decades. It seems that the researchers in question view the forestry profession and the industry as enemies and so now rarely consult with those who actually have the practical knowledge of what happens in forests --- and this disconnect plays a substantial role in the resultant research which is seemingly designed to give ammunition to activist and political campaigns through media blitzkriegs. Rather than being genuine efforts to further our knowledge, such research typically advocates for political outcomes rather than practical solutions. Sadly, the evidence of this has been laid bare since academic institutions started to publicly promote their brand in the competitive quest for more students and research funding --- I suspect the mantra is that the greater the public impact of their research (eg. controversy created by alarmist media coverage) the more notice taken of their brand. Sadly, this is blurring the formerly clear distinction between activism and academia, and leading to outcomes that are not necessarily evidence-based. Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:42:21 AM
| |
Mark, We don't actually need someone 'objective' and 'unbias' in the position, we simply need someone prepared to hear the alternative perspective, and hold everyone accountable.
Bugsy, Cobber, There are so many examples of the establishment scientists simply 'making it all up', that we absolutely need some balance, we need someone to shake things up so there is some accountability. Peter Ridd was published on this topic here... http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11455 Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 11:22:57 AM
|
Without bias, Alan B.